According to research by scientists at Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Manchester Metropolitan University and the Université catholique de Louvain, greenhouse gas emissions produced up to this point has ensured an irreversible sea-level rise of 1.1 meters by the year 3000. This number could increase, they warn, if no action is taken to reduce these levels -- and the effects could extend into thousands of years into the future.

The research team came to this conclusion by modeling sea-level changes over thousands of years while including all of our planet's ice sheets and warming of the oceans into its projections. This includes glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. The team said this has never been done before.

Using a climate modeling system called LOVECLIM, the team analyzed several scenarios over the next thousand years. It found that there will be a sea-level rise of at least 1.1 meters by the year 3000, but if other certain emissions scenarios were followed, it could increase to 2.1, 4.1 or even 6.8 meters.

The study also found that the Greenland ice sheet was the cause of over half of the sea-level rises while thermal expansion of the ocean came in second place and glaciers/ice came in third.

"Ice sheets are very slow components in the climate system; they respond on time scales of thousands of years," said Professor Philippe Huybrechts, co-author of the study. "Together with the long lifetime of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, this inertia is the real poison on the climate system; anything we do now that changes the forcing in the climate system will necessarily have long consequences for the ice sheets and sea level.

"Ultimately, the current polar ice sheets store about 65 metres of equivalent sea level and if climatic warming will be severe and long-lasting, all ice will eventually melt. Mankind should limit the concentration of greenhouse gases at the lowest possible level as soon as possible. The only realistic option is a drastic reduction of the emissions. The lower the ultimate warming will be, the less severe the ultimate consequences will be."

A few points for consideration by those that believe that man made dangerous climate change caused by CO2 emissions is occurring.

Science is not consensus. Science is littered by entrenched theories shattered by evidence.

The number of scientists that are less than convinced that CO2 drives climate change is significant and growing.

The amount of research funding for climate science, a previously esoteric and tiny part of the scientific community, has increased over a thousand fold as the result of just one theory. Hundreds of thousands of political activists, media workers and many important bureaucrats and politicians are enthusiastic supporters of that same theory for reasons other than just the science. Scientists are human and are affected by the same stuff that affects other people, money, careers, fame, status, peer pressure.

The most recent late 20th century warming period that started around 1975 and stopped around 1998 is in no way unusual by the standards of recent climate history.

If you look at the temperature record of the Holocene, the last ten thousand years since the end of the last ice age, you can see that the longer general warming trend from the mid 19th century is in no way anomalous or unusual.

You should also note that the period known as the 'Little Ice Age' (a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries) was the coldest period since the end of the last real ice age and the warming since then has only represented a recovery back to the sort of temperatures seen in the four thousand years.

Also note that the early part of the Holocene, eight to four thousand years before the present, a recent period when humans were starting to farm and starting to build the first permanent settlements, was much warmer than today. Nothing catastrophic happened as a result.

The current case for CO2 driving the recent warming is wholly dependent on climate models which claim to show that only CO2 can explain the recent warming. These models have been tested empirically. Twenty years ago these same models were used to make various projections of what would happen if CO2 continued to rise by various amounts. In fact CO2 rose by the highest amounts projected, and by an amount the models claimed would produce significant and clear warming. That warming never happened and there has in fact been no warming since 1998 even though CO2 has continued to rise. That seems to indicate that the models are flawed in some way.

Sea ice in the Antarctic has in the last couple of weeks reached record levels. The models showed warming in the Antarctic and retreating sea ice around the south pole. This also seems to indicate that the models are flawed in some way.

The sun has ended its highest level of solar activity in the last eight thousand years (which occurred in the 20th century) and appears to be entering some sort of grand minima period. All such previous periods have been marked by cooling.

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"John Maynard Keynes

I like the explanation shows that scientist are A. not in agreement and B. Do not have enough climate data to prove a theory one way or another. I would like to add a small fact myself that I read once during this whole greenhouse gas caused global warming theory. One average volcano explosion such as Mt. St. Helens expels the CO2 equivalent of every car driven in America in an entire year. Nature still causes a lot of its own greenhouse gases to be put in the atmosphere and where is the data supporting that Nature could be responsible for any climate change since it does seem that alot of the blame is pointed at human industrialization and really no other cause.

You can't tax the shit out of nature transfer money from nature to poor countries. Plus enviroweenies love nature more than they love themselves and their fellow humans.

Nature is god to them and they must protect their god lest he becomes angry and drowns us all in a flood. Maybe the enviroweenies can just build an ark, put all the animals in it and just let all of us evil capitalists drown. Then they can rebuild their liberal Utopia.

Scientists all agree that if you find that the sky is not falling, you lose funding. If the sky is falling in a manner that could increase government power and tax revenue, your funding increases by orders of magnitude. Climatology would be a tiny scientific backwater without all the fear mongering.

Change is not always bad. Between Greenland and Antarctica, plenty of real estate will become available, even with rising sea levels. Humans and other hardy species will adapt, like they always have. Where is the research money to explore the opportunities the 10,000 year warming trend will offer?

quote: Change is not always bad. Between Greenland and Antarctica, plenty of real estate will become available, even with rising sea levels.

Good point. I have a very Lex Luthor style idea in my head: buy up real estate in Antarctica or even just take it by squatters'/homestead rights, pump out tons of CO2, allow the ice to melt, and voila! Tons of new farmland while everyone else's is heating up and going dry. :) The growing season should be awesome there with half the year in perpetual sunlight.

hehe, just kidding. I don't believe CO2 is the cause of the end of the world any more than Mitt Romney does. That line just sounded like a great setup. I couldn't leave it hanging.

It may be a good time to look into some investment property in Florida. When the ice sheets start rolling in I expect the location will be very desirable. Being within driving distance of the Bahamas will also be a plus.

As I have pointed out previously, the Pleistocene ice age is the one that we are currently experiencing. This is just a short warm cycle during that ice age and is periodic and evidenced by core data.

THE ICE AGE HAS NOT ENDED, IGNORAMUS.

GOOGLE PLEISTOCENE.GOOGLE HOLOCENE.GOOGLE CLIMATIC OPTIMUM.

Please. This is just sad.

You know how the continental shelf, where the coastal waters are all fairly shallow and go out several miles before dropping off? Well those are lowlands during glacial periods. And the point where they drop off will be the new coastline during a glacial period.

Please. Just check Wikipedia. Expand your knowledge. We are 12,000 years into the Holocene interglacial period. The previous one lasted 15 odd thousand years.

good job, if your part of the ice age consensus group, useless if your part of the global warming group, pointless if your trying to argue a point. whats sad is the fact you spent all this time trying to out science an unscientific discussion, take your facts and write a paper you make me sleepy.

"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer